The Facts About Assault Weapons and Crime

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by vcmm

"Before I hear the usual scoffs, I suggest you read the part on reloading. It starts on page 43."

WOW

That's what I said the first time I saw it. Well, not really. What I said was something unprintable. Then I joined the NRA.

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

The whole using liberal as a bad word to denounce anyone that has an opinion contrary to yours s lame and immature.

50% of republicans polled are in favor of Obama's gun initiatives. So does this mean you are the lowly minority now?

http://rt.com/usa/news/gun-regulation-obama-poll-644/

Nice news source.

My question is do you really believe what you posted when even the Clinton News Network CNN is saying that people want to head to hills because they are so afraid of BO?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by greylynx

Nice news source.

My question is do you really believe what you posted when even the Clinton News Network CNN is saying that people want to head to hills because they are so afraid of BO?

Regardless...a Gallup Poll is professionally done. Just read it before typing next time. It is interesting.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

Good post.

But you are missing something. What you are missing is me - and people like me.

Like it or not, we are citizens in this country too.

And I will not accept any form of gun control. You may think I am an extremist or wacko, but the fact is... I have a vote and I have a voice.

Stop asking me to concede.

I will not and never support anything that takes away an individual’s right to own a firearm. Background checks? Re-licensing? Great ideas. The problem is they do not work. They do not work for the same reason why I think everybody should own a firearm. We may be able to trust the government of today, but tomorrow, who knows?

Licensing and back ground checks are a way bureaucrats can take firearms away. It will not stop at the insane or those with a criminal history. Next it will be those who are divorced or those who have experienced bankruptcy. Sooner than later it will be those with sleeping problems or the guy who blew 0.06 after a night with his buddies.

I do not trust the government to manage anything. I will not trust my freedom to a stranger in Miramichi who has the power to make the decision if my application gets a stamp or the shredder.

Like it or not, I have a voice. I support unencumbered ownership of firearms for Canadians & Americans. While horrible, 28 people in a school is absolute peanuts compared to what a government can do. Ask the Ukrainians. Yes.... History does repeat itself.

You don't have the"right" to own a firearm... you have the privilage of owning them
Big difference.
Rights are given or taken.
Privilage is earned and can be lost.

Everything else is emotional based and defies common sense.

It amazes me that 28 people die because of more or less unfettered access to arms and some people still try to argue that even greater available access would somehow prevent it.
Its like handing a drowning man a glass of water.

So... keep pulling on that tail buit you won;t stiop the mule.
On the other hand... build a fence and you will both stop it and conceal it from the neighbours.

Problem solved.

Better screening and control serves both communities far better than a ban or snapping at the wind evr will.

[silver]

Originally Posted by pesky672

You don't have the"right" to own a firearm... you have the privilage of owning them
Big difference.
Rights are given or taken.
Privilage is earned and can be lost.
)

I am a citizen, not a subject.

I have the right to own many things, a firearm being one of them.

This can be taken from me, but it involves a judge and a courtroom.

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by pesky672

You don't have the"right" to own a firearm... you have the privilage of owning them
Big difference.
Rights are given or taken.
Privilage is earned and can be lost.

Everything else is emotional based and defies common sense.

It amazes me that 28 people die because of more or less unfettered access to arms and some people still try to argue that even greater available access would somehow prevent it.
Its like handing a drowning man a glass of water.

So... keep pulling on that tail buit you won;t stiop the mule.
On the other hand... build a fence and you will both stop it and conceal it from the neighbours.

Problem solved.

Better screening and control serves both communities far better than a ban or snapping at the wind evr will.

The argument for greater access to guns goes along the line that at Sandy hook as in most of these gun free zone shootings one armed person shooting back could save a lot of lives or even the knowledge that someone was ther e could prevent it.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

The argument for greater access to guns goes along the line that at Sandy hook as in most of these gun free zone shootings one armed person shooting back could save a lot of lives or even the knowledge that someone was ther e could prevent it.

That theory failed the test at Columbine.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by silver

I have the right to own many things, a firearm being one of them.

In Canada no such right exists. Owning a firearm is a privilege not a right and that privilege can be taken away similar to the privilege of driving.

[bigbadjoe108]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

That theory failed the test at Columbine.

Actually not really. The School Sherriff was out of the school at the time and when he arrived the shooting had already started. His training was to contain and call in that situation. Which is what he did. And with all the shooting, they had to wait even longer for a SWAT type team.

This exact situation showed how messed up that training was. Now all officers are supposed to be trained how to react to this kind of a thing immediately, preferably with a partner.

I would dare say that if that deputy was actually in the school when the shooting started, there may have been a totally different result. New age training or not.

[bigbadjoe108]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

In Canada no such right exists. Owning a firearm is a privilege not a right and that privilege can be taken away similar to the privilege of driving.

Actually in Canada you have no right to property at all. Land use for provinces is actually the reason that it was never put in the charter, but a "nice" side effect of this is the fact that now they can say you have no right to a firearm.

This actually means that if a law was enacted tomorrow, in theory they could ban the posession and use of any vehicle that can go faster than 30Km/h.

You have no right to your home, your car, your guns or your computer.

Ownership of anything in this country is a privledge. Admittedly S.8 and S.24 MAY be read that it would be unreasonable to take your house. But there isn't a guarantee that the 5 out of 9 justices at the SCC would agree with you.

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

That theory failed the test at Columbine.

But passed with flying colors at New Life church Colorado.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by silver

I am a citizen, not a subject.

I have the right to own many things, a firearm being one of them.

This can be taken from me, but it involves a judge and a courtroom.

You have a conditional right based upon acquiring a license... that is called a privilage and an earned one at that.

Rights are something found in that rag Trudeau dreamed up and guns...are not on that menu...sorry.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

The argument for greater access to guns goes along the line that at Sandy hook as in most of these gun free zone shootings one armed person shooting back could save a lot of lives or even the knowledge that someone was ther e could prevent it.

Sure but who?
And what makes everyone so dang sure that nobody else did have a gun?

Afterall...bans don't work...right?

And who would advertise the fact now that they were armed and lacked the balls or that they were breaking the law themselves or that it was locked in their drawer or in their car?

Honestly... the idea that nobody in that place was packing...even though they were not supposed to.... in the good old US of A... might be a bit naive.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

Actually in Canada you have no right to property at all. Land use for provinces is actually the reason that it was never put in the charter, but a "nice" side effect of this is the fact that now they can say you have no right to a firearm.

This actually means that if a law was enacted tomorrow, in theory they could ban the posession and use of any vehicle that can go faster than 30Km/h.

You have no right to your home, your car, your guns or your computer.

Ownership of anything in this country is a privledge. Admittedly S.8 and S.24 MAY be read that it would be unreasonable to take your house. But there isn't a guarantee that the 5 out of 9 justices at the SCC would agree with you.

I stand corrected... good point... I'd forgotten that little tidbit.

[greylynx]

Ownership of anything in this country is a privledge. Admittedly S.8 and S.24 MAY be read that it would be unreasonable to take your house. But there isn't a guarantee that the 5 out of 9 justices at the SCC would agree with you.[/QUOTE]

No thanks to Peter Lougheed, Allison's buddy.

And the gun banners know this. Just ban them one gun at a time like slow cooking a lobster.

[bigbadjoe108]

What I never understood was how anyone on this board, in this country or anywhere, for that matter, could encourage the government to seize anything from law abiding citizens.

There is a whole long list of parolees, cons on probation and a sex offender registry who have already been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, in court to not obey the laws of society.

I would strongly suggest stronger guidance, control and supervision of actual offenders than regulating what joe blow uses in a hunt, at the range or just shooting for fun.

THAT is where you get results in the real world. And THAT is the right thing to do. Spending money to enforce magazine restrictions while sex offenders can "forget" to update the registry is absolute garbage. It is insulting and shows a complete lack of foresight.

[Cyclops]

Originally Posted by pesky672

It amazes me that 28 people die because of more or less unfettered access to arms...

Oh, that's why they died? Maybe in Bizarro world.

[bigbadjoe108]

Originally Posted by pesky672

It amazes me that 28 people die because of more or less unfettered access to arms and some people still try to argue that even greater available access would somehow prevent it.
Its like handing a drowning man a glass of water.

If by unfettered you mean "Having to murder his own mother to steal her guns and then go an use them" then yes, he had unfettered access.

Sure I guess you could say that her guns didn't help her at all, but in all honesty would you think that someone that deranged would have not found firearms in a country with 350 million plus?

You can't legistlate the firearms out of existence. The only thing would be to try to get everyone on a level playing field.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

What I never understood was how anyone on this board, in this country or anywhere, for that matter, could encourage the government to seize anything from law abiding citizens.

There is a whole long list of parolees, cons on probation and a sex offender registry who have already been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, in court to not obey the laws of society.

I would strongly suggest stronger guidance, control and supervision of actual offenders than regulating what joe blow uses in a hunt, at the range or just shooting for fun.

THAT is where you get results in the real world. And THAT is the right thing to do. Spending money to enforce magazine restrictions while sex offenders can "forget" to update the registry is absolute garbage. It is insulting and shows a complete lack of foresight.

For me the issue is not simply about banning assault rifles. You seem to think that anyone that supports any form of gun control is out to ban firearms. Banning assault rifles is only one of Obama's proposals to Congress. Obama and the majority of Americans want universal background checks for all gun sales. The NRA strongly opposes it. I could be wrong and you might be anti gun control for any measure but it sounds to me like universal background checks would be something that you would support.

[Cyclops]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Obama and the majority of Americans want universal background checks for all gun sales. The NRA strongly opposes it.

Wouldn't have made one iota of a difference in the Sandy Hook shootings or in any other killings. Kind of like saying, "these mass murders are a real problem, what can we do about it? I know, let's ban crackers!"

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by silver

I am a citizen, not a subject.

x2

Originally Posted by pesky672

It amazes me that 28 people die because of more or less unfettered access to arms and some people still try to argue that even greater available access would somehow prevent it.

What amazes me is this:

1. You persist in blaming things for evil, cruel behaviour by a person. You seem unable to digest the simple fact that things do nothing, good or evil, and it is irrational to blame them.

2. You persist in arguing for laws that are proven ineffective; i.e, the "assault weapon" ban and magazine limits.

3. Even knowing that your position has not worked before, you stubbornly refuse to try another path and concoct wild hyptheticals to support emotional arguments and circular logic.

4. After all that, you can still summon the gall to insult us?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Wouldn't have made one iota of a difference in the Sandy Hook shootings or in any other killings.

His post was regarding criminals and convicts not mass shootings. Are you are anti universal background checks?

[bigbadjoe108]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

For me the issue is not simply about banning assault rifles. You seem to think that anyone that supports any form of gun control is out to ban firearms. Banning assault rifles is only one of Obama's proposals to Congress. Obama and the majority of Americans want universal background checks for all gun sales. The NRA strongly opposes it. I could be wrong and you might be anti gun control for any measure but it sounds to me like universal background checks would be something that you would support.

They are trying to ban all guns. Maybe not you, maybe not most people on this board, but many people want no hunting, no guns and nothing that they don't agree with. Read up on the coalition for gun control. Wendy Cukier is constantly lobbying for prety much a total ban.

The only way to fight this lunacy isn't to roll over and take it to make it go away, it is to fight it tooth and nail. Much like the robber who wants to take stuff from you in the night, they don't care if you are nice. If you are, they'll just help themselves to more.

I am actually OK with background checks, and I don't own a semi anything. That said the current liberal crop of leadership hopefuls have already floated a ban on semi automatics in Canada (Marc Garneau specifically. I'll try to dig up a link).

Most hunters own a bolt action rifle, which, according to those that wish to ban guns are a "Military grade sniper rifle which can kill a man out to 500+ yards. Who needs something that dangerous around? What if they want to assaisinate someone, how do we defend from a sniper 500+ yards away ... blah blah blah"

It's like the old adage "They came for jews, and I said nothing as I am not jewish, then they came for the gypsies and I too said nothing, then the protestants, catholics and everyone else. THen they came for me, and when I tried to say something, no one could help as they were all gone."

Don't for a minute think that the anti gun crowd will let you keep yours once they are done with the AR owners. Because if they get the chance to take your stuff, they will.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

I am actually OK with background checks, and I don't own a semi anything. That said the current liberal crop of leadership hopefuls have already floated a ban on semi automatics in Canada (Marc Garneau specifically. I'll try to dig up a link).

I don't buy into the NRA fear mongering. "Giving up" the ability to not have a background check is going to lead to the confiscation of everyone's firearms? It's ridiculous IMO.

I hate to break the news to you but if you are okay with universal background checks then you are okay with gun control.

I believe that what Mark Garneau stated was that he'd support banning the assault type rifles similar to the one used at Sandy Nook. I don't recall him mentioning banning all semi-automatic rifles.

[bigbadjoe108]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I don't buy into the NRA fear mongering. "Giving up" the ability to not have a background check is going to lead to the confiscation of everyone's firearms? It's ridiculous IMO.

I hate to break the news to you but if you are okay with universal background checks then you are okay with gun control.

I believe that what Mark Garneau stated was that he'd support banning the assault type rifles similar to the one used at Sandy Nook. I don't recall him mentioning banning all semi-automatic rifles.

I never said I wasn't into gun control at all, and I am cool with some background checks AKA the PAL/FAC.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...rifle-ban.html

And I reckon they wont stop there, but maybe they will. I hope the NRA and the NFA keep fighting the good fight for the honest owners out there.

Not sure what they want out of this, if they really wanted to keep kids safe, they would be pushing for a ban on alcohol and for governing all vehicles to not go faster than 30 Kmph....

They would also keep people safer by asking the government to expend its limited resources on better tracking and control of people on parole, probation and the sex offender registry. But nope, grab some random guy's AR, that'll do the trick....

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

They would also keep people safer by asking the government to expend its limited resources on better tracking and control of people on parole, probation and the sex offender registry. But nope, grab some random guy's AR, that'll do the trick....

I don't think that you know what Obama's proposals to Congress are and what his Executive Orders were. You seem to think that the only issue is to "grab some random guy's AR, that'll do the trick....". There's a little more involved than just that.

Proposed Congressional Actions

Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.

Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.

Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.

Increasing criminal penalties for "straw purchasers," people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.

Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street.

Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Eliminating a restriction that requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old.

Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks.

Provide additional $20 million to help expand the a system that tracks violent deaths across the nation from 18 states to 50 states.

Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop emergency response plans.

Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people.

Executive actions

Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

Addressing unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health

Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Improving incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

Directing the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

Proposing a rule making to give law enforcement authorities the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Publishing a letter from the A.T.F. to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

Starting a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
Reviewing safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

Releasing a report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and making it widely available to law enforcement authorities.

Nominating an A.T.F. director.

Providing law enforcement authorities, first responders and school officials with proper training for armed attacks situations.

Maximizing enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

Issuing a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence.

Directing the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenging the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Releasing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

Providing incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

Developing model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

Releasing a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

Finalizing regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within insurance exchanges.

Committing to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

Starting a national dialogue on mental health led by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, and Arne Duncan, the secretary of education.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...-proposal.html

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

Actually not really. The School Sherriff was out of the school at the time and when he arrived the shooting had already started. His training was to contain and call in that situation. Which is what he did. And with all the shooting, they had to wait even longer for a SWAT type team.

This exact situation showed how messed up that training was. Now all officers are supposed to be trained how to react to this kind of a thing immediately, preferably with a partner.

I would dare say that if that deputy was actually in the school when the shooting started, there may have been a totally different result. New age training or not.

Also new training is for responding officers to enter in immediately and not wait. Big difference from then to know.

[bigbadjoe108]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I don't think that you know what Obama's proposals to Congress are and what his Executive Orders were. You seem to think that the only issue is to "grab some random guy's AR, that'll do the trick....". There's a little more involved than just that.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...-proposal.html

Well I guess for a second there we were discussing apples and oranges.

As for Obama, maybe some background checks would be reasonable. THe key difference is that they actually have a right to have a firearm there, which makes it tricky. I see the NRA as trying best to ensure the right of a hunter/enthusiast/self defense owner stays strong.

the "limited resource" comment I had was more for Garneau and the rest of Canadian society.

[bigbadjoe108]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Also new training is for responding officers to enter in immediately and not wait. Big difference from then to know.

Absolutely true. This is also one of the catalysts to the upgrading of the firearms in a standard cruiser. Now a good chunk of police will have almost immediate access to a carbine ( the percentage will vary from service to service though)

[tri777]

Alrighty then..let's just pretend the assault weapons ban has passed into law..gee.."so what's the next best thing available now?(asks mr.insane crimminal) Ah yes, a semi automatic glock with 5-10 clips loaded to the hilt (replies mr.insanity)...now then what do we have? Ah yes, the newly improved, 'ban the pistol' crowd!

(P.S. Did'nt the theatre shooter blast alot of people away with a shotgun?..hmm,might want to ban those too while were at it..so much insanity on both sides-the crimminal & the anti's!)

P.S.S can some kind soul please tell me who the others were that got arrested in the sandy hook shooting? (helicopter footage)